Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Fans were pleased as those polled by CinemaScore.com gave it an encouraging A-.

What does this even mean? What's the science behind this statement?

Is it referring to a scientific poll of the general audience who saw the film, and then is that A- an amalgamation of the grades assigned by those polled who self-identified as Star Trek fans? If that's what it was, then what was the grade assigned by everybody else?

I mean, there was a reason those guys were chosen to write Trek in the first place. It was because they write popcorn fluff movies that make tons of money for films that get, at best, grudgingly lukewarm reviews.

The 7.9/10 average rating that Star Trek (2009) gets from the Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes is better than "grudgingly lukewarm" [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/]. Further, if not all of them rated it the exactly same, then at least one of them thought it was even better than that.

---

Psion wrote:

CorporalCaptain wrote:

Fans were pleased as those polled by CinemaScore.com gave it an encouraging A-.

What does this even mean? What's the science behind this statement?

Is it referring to a scientific poll of the general audience who saw the film, and then is that A- an amalgamation of the grades assigned by those polled who self-identified as Star Trek fans? If that's what it was, then what was the grade assigned by everybody else?

The 7.9/10 average rating that Star Trek (2009) gets from the Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes is better than "grudgingly lukewarm" [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/]. Further, if not all of them rated it the exactly same, then at least one of them thought it was even better than that.

Ebert gave it two and a half stars. That's about what it deserves. It was fun to watch while you're in the seats but you forget about it within minutes of the lights coming up again. To be fair, I felt the same way about Insurrection being forgettable, with the added insult of it being dull.

I mean, there was a reason those guys were chosen to write Trek in the first place. It was because they write popcorn fluff movies that make tons of money for films that get, at best, grudgingly lukewarm reviews.

The 7.9/10 average rating that Star Trek (2009) gets from the Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes is better than "grudgingly lukewarm" [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/]. Further, if not all of them rated it the exactly same, then at least one of them thought it was even better than that.

---

Psion wrote:

CorporalCaptain wrote:

What does this even mean? What's the science behind this statement?

Is it referring to a scientific poll of the general audience who saw the film, and then is that A- an amalgamation of the grades assigned by those polled who self-identified as Star Trek fans? If that's what it was, then what was the grade assigned by everybody else?

Thanks, but what's there doesn't exactly shed any light on anything, does it. The article there cites only home page links to Exhibitor Relations and EDI for where its data comes from. No answers.

No problem. A little more Googling gets us to the CinemaScore website which has the following information on the "About Us" page:

CinemaScore is the industry leader in measuring movie appeal. We provide unbiased measurement of audience response that helps gauge movie appeal and success by polling movie audiences on opening night for their reaction to the latest major movie releases.
In 1978, CinemaScore was born when its founders saw a need for theatre audiences to have a "public voice" for their opinions about movie appeal. Professional movie critics often dominate public conversations in the news about movies; while movie critics' interpretations are interesting and helpful, their reviews often emphasize a movie's meaning, not whether the movie appealed to live audiences. And while a movie critic only provides a single perspective on a movie, a statistically robust sample of a national audience offers a broader and more varied point of view.
CinemaScore's movie research brings the opinions of theatre audiences into the public arena. On opening night around the country, CinemaScore polls moviegoers for their opinions on new movie releases. Audience members fill out ballot cards right at the theatre, grading a movie A to F and providing demographic information. CinemaScore uses this direct balloting approach to establish a movie's grade—its overall "CinemaScore."
With such a wide variety of entertainment options available and so many different ways to watch movies today, the need for a "movie-quality benchmark" is greater than ever. CinemaScore helps moviegoers make better choices about what movies to watch—people can more easily find the on-screen stories that appeal to them, as well as spend more quality time with family and friends. After providing reliable, audience-generated movie reviews for over 34 years, CinemaScore has earned the respect of Hollywood studios and news organizations—including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Hollywood Reporter—as well as moviegoers worldwide.

__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.

The 7.9/10 average rating that Star Trek (2009) gets from the Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes is better than "grudgingly lukewarm" [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/]. Further, if not all of them rated it the exactly same, then at least one of them thought it was even better than that.

Ebert gave it two and a half stars. That's about what it deserves. It was fun to watch while you're in the seats but you forget about it within minutes of the lights coming up again. To be fair, I felt the same way about Insurrection being forgettable, with the added insult of it being dull.

Personally, I think that's about the right way to rate Star Trek (2009). My caveat there is that I rate most Trek films worse than that! Consequently, the 2009 film is in my top three Trek films.

Clearly, however, some critics thought it was better.

__________________“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP” — Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)

I mean, there was a reason those guys were chosen to write Trek in the first place. It was because they write popcorn fluff movies that make tons of money for films that get, at best, grudgingly lukewarm reviews.

The 7.9/10 average rating that Star Trek (2009) gets from the Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes is better than "grudgingly lukewarm" [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/]. Further, if not all of them rated it the exactly same, then at least one of them thought it was even better than that.

---

Thanks, but what's there doesn't exactly shed any light on anything, does it. The article there cites only home page links to Exhibitor Relations and EDI for where its data comes from. No answers.

No problem. A little more Googling gets us to the CinemaScore website which has the following information on the "About Us" page:

CinemaScore is the industry leader in measuring movie appeal. We provide unbiased measurement of audience response that helps gauge movie appeal and success by polling movie audiences on opening night for their reaction to the latest major movie releases.
In 1978, CinemaScore was born when its founders saw a need for theatre audiences to have a "public voice" for their opinions about movie appeal. Professional movie critics often dominate public conversations in the news about movies; while movie critics' interpretations are interesting and helpful, their reviews often emphasize a movie's meaning, not whether the movie appealed to live audiences. And while a movie critic only provides a single perspective on a movie, a statistically robust sample of a national audience offers a broader and more varied point of view.
CinemaScore's movie research brings the opinions of theatre audiences into the public arena. On opening night around the country, CinemaScore polls moviegoers for their opinions on new movie releases. Audience members fill out ballot cards right at the theatre, grading a movie A to F and providing demographic information. CinemaScore uses this direct balloting approach to establish a movie's grade—its overall "CinemaScore."
With such a wide variety of entertainment options available and so many different ways to watch movies today, the need for a "movie-quality benchmark" is greater than ever. CinemaScore helps moviegoers make better choices about what movies to watch—people can more easily find the on-screen stories that appeal to them, as well as spend more quality time with family and friends. After providing reliable, audience-generated movie reviews for over 34 years, CinemaScore has earned the respect of Hollywood studios and news organizations—including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Hollywood Reporter—as well as moviegoers worldwide.

OK. Thanks for that. That is more helpful.

It still doesn't answer the basic question I had, though, which is why did the quote from boxofficeguru.com grammatically say that it was the fans that gave it an A-. It's a poorly written sentence, then.

It should just simply say that the CinemaScore was A-, and leave it at that, if that's what they meant.

Any inference about what fans thought is, in that case, totally unsupported by the data.

__________________“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP” — Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)

The 7.9/10 average rating that Star Trek (2009) gets from the Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes is better than "grudgingly lukewarm" [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/]. Further, if not all of them rated it the exactly same, then at least one of them thought it was even better than that.

---

Thanks, but what's there doesn't exactly shed any light on anything, does it. The article there cites only home page links to Exhibitor Relations and EDI for where its data comes from. No answers.

No problem. A little more Googling gets us to the CinemaScore website which has the following information on the "About Us" page:

CinemaScore is the industry leader in measuring movie appeal. We provide unbiased measurement of audience response that helps gauge movie appeal and success by polling movie audiences on opening night for their reaction to the latest major movie releases.
In 1978, CinemaScore was born when its founders saw a need for theatre audiences to have a "public voice" for their opinions about movie appeal. Professional movie critics often dominate public conversations in the news about movies; while movie critics' interpretations are interesting and helpful, their reviews often emphasize a movie's meaning, not whether the movie appealed to live audiences. And while a movie critic only provides a single perspective on a movie, a statistically robust sample of a national audience offers a broader and more varied point of view.
CinemaScore's movie research brings the opinions of theatre audiences into the public arena. On opening night around the country, CinemaScore polls moviegoers for their opinions on new movie releases. Audience members fill out ballot cards right at the theatre, grading a movie A to F and providing demographic information. CinemaScore uses this direct balloting approach to establish a movie's grade—its overall "CinemaScore."
With such a wide variety of entertainment options available and so many different ways to watch movies today, the need for a "movie-quality benchmark" is greater than ever. CinemaScore helps moviegoers make better choices about what movies to watch—people can more easily find the on-screen stories that appeal to them, as well as spend more quality time with family and friends. After providing reliable, audience-generated movie reviews for over 34 years, CinemaScore has earned the respect of Hollywood studios and news organizations—including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Hollywood Reporter—as well as moviegoers worldwide.

OK. Thanks for that. That is more helpful.

It still doesn't answer the basic question I had, though, which is why did the quote from boxofficeguru.com grammatically say that it was the fans that gave it an A-. It's a poorly written sentence, then.

It should just simply say that the CinemaScore was A-, and leave it at that, if that's what they meant.

Any inference about what fans thought is, in that case, totally unsupported by the data.

Agreed. CinemaScore knew some simple demographics about respondents, but probably didn't include any questions like, "Are you a fan of the series?"

Or did they? There's no way to tell from here. I'm done pestering Google tonight.

__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.

Agree, Insurrection was no more than a weak television episode and not worthy of a movie.

CorporalCaptain wrote:

Insurrection was the tailspin, and Nemesis was the franchise smashing into the ground.

I think it started earlier than Insurrection and Nemesis.

When I first watched Generations on VHS, I thought it was the beginning of the end of the TNG franchise. Generations seemed like a mediocre extended two-part episode. I didn't have any high expectations for further TNG movies.

When First Contact came along, I was pleasantly surprised as to how excellent it was.

By the time Insurrection came along, I was disappointed in how it went back to resembling a mediocre extended two-part episode. When Nemesis came along, I really didn't care anymore.

Personally, I think that's about the right way to rate Star Trek (2009). My caveat there is that I rate most Trek films worse than that! Consequently, the 2009 film is in my top three Trek films.
Clearly, however, some critics thought it was better.

Agree, Insurrection was no more than a weak television episode and not worthy of a movie.

CorporalCaptain wrote:

Insurrection was the tailspin, and Nemesis was the franchise smashing into the ground.

I think it started earlier than Insurrection and Nemesis.

When I first watched Generations on VHS, I thought it was the beginning of the end of the TNG franchise. Generations seemed like a mediocre extended two-part episode. I didn't have any high expectations for further TNG movies.

When First Contact came along, I was pleasantly surprised as to how excellent it was.

By the time Insurrection came along, I was disappointed in how it went back to resembling a mediocre extended two-part episode. When Nemesis came along, I really didn't care anymore.

that's interesting, I think, like it or dislike it, that Generations has a very big and cinematic feel to it.(the meeting of Kirk and Picard, the Enterprise crash, the Nexus effects and the effects in general, etc.) It's also a great-looking film.

Personally, I think that's about the right way to rate Star Trek (2009). My caveat there is that I rate most Trek films worse than that! Consequently, the 2009 film is in my top three Trek films.
Clearly, however, some critics thought it was better.

Then what part of Trek are you really enthused about?

TOS and TNG, for the most part.

The films have been disappointing overall, right out of the gate.

I was really let down by TMP. It didn't reflect the best elements of TOS at all.

I really enjoyed TWOK. However, while TWOK brought character development of Kirk and Spock to the fore, more effectively than TMP did, there were many other (less important) aspects of TWOK that were completely incongruous with TOS, and not in a good way.

Swerving back towards being on topic, I think jayceee is right that GEN set the TNG part of the movie franchise off on a rocky start. I was certainly underwhelmed by it; it wasn't really that much of an improvement over TUC, which is really faint praise.

FC was certainly a significant step up, but there was a lot that I hated about it. I could let the reimagining of Zefram Cochrane slide, but revisiting the sort of sloppy time travel tropes that populated TVH—but without the redeeming element of an overall tone of light-hearted comedy—was really irritating to me. Nevertheless, FC is the zenith of the TNG part of the film franchise, as far as I'm concerned.

__________________“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP” — Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)

that's interesting, I think, like it or dislike it, that Generations has a very big and cinematic feel to it.(the meeting of Kirk and Picard, the Enterprise crash, the Nexus effects and the effects in general, etc.) It's also a great-looking film.

Ignoring the lackluster script of Generations, I only recently came to notice how good the special effects were for its time, from watching the blu ray version.

The older VHS and first dvd version (ie. non-anamorphic widescreen) I watched previously, looked rather awful.

Let's look at it through the box office. Ralph Winter believed TFF was so bad it almost killed the movie franchise. But as bad as many say it was, TFF still had the best opening weekend of any Trek movie to that point, and it made some money. On a budget of $30 million, TFF grossed $70 million, worldwide. So it wasn't a box office bomb. Just an unfortunate follow-up story to TVH. And, it justified doing a sixth movie.

INS was not a box office bomb, either. Its opening weekend brought in $8 million less than FC, but it still made $118 million, worldwide on a budget of $70 million. Not a great margin, but not a loss, either. That was only about $2 million less than GEN had brought in, though GEN had almost half the budget. If there was a problem, it was FC brought in considerably more money on a smaller budget. Like TFF, INS was simply a bad follow-up to FC, not really a sign that the franchise losing public interest.

The problem is, NEM was a bomb. Period. NEM barely covered its $60 million budget in worldwide gross. Personally, it's the only Trek movie going back to TMP that I never saw in the theater.
If NEM had at least made some money, any money, there could've been sound justification for another TNG movie for the crew to go out on. Instead, I think Paramount took it as a sign that he TNG franchise had played out its creative juices, fan interest alone could no longer sustain the box office, and it was time to put Trek on the shelf for a while.